UN: Hey, to reach our climate goals by 2030, we only need to cut world GDP by four percent! Sweet, right?

posted at 7:01 pm on January 18, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

That UN chief climate commissar wasn’t kidding the other day when she professed to admire communism as the ostensibly cleanest and greenest of economic infrastructures; if only these esteemed bureaucrats could yield the same sort of totalitarian influence the world over, that most assuredly imminent climate-change catastrophe would be reversed in no time!

The cost of holding rising temperatures to safe levels may reach 4 percent of economic output by 2030, according to a draft United Nations report designed to influence efforts to draft a global-warming treaty.

Most scenarios that meet the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) cap on global warming endorsed by world leaders require a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in heat-trapping gases by 2050 from 2010 levels, according to the third installment of the UN’s biggest-ever study of climate change. The world would need to triple the share of renewables, nuclear power and carbon-capture and storage to meet that goal. …

The research is important because it’s intended to influence the direction of UN negotiations involving more than 190 countries on how to combat global warming. The discussions have been beset by wrangles between developing and industrialized nations over who should bear the cost of tackling climate change.

As I mentioned earlier this week, the UN is hoping that a big hunk of these emissions-reduction goals will be achieved by global financial institutions ‘doing the right thing’ by quadrupling their investments in wind, solar, and etcetera to reach an arbitrary $1 trillion annual total that the UN has determined is the optimal amount. Most unfortunately, global investment in renewables just fell for the second year in a row in the face of all of the uncertainty and steep energy prices that these technologies are producing, and if trying to appeal to world bankers’ irrationality by “investing” in mutual impoverishment and foregoing investment in fossil fuels just because it feels good is one of the UN’s best ideas, they seriously need to reevaluate.

“It’s really about cars and coal,” said Marilyn Brown, professor of public policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, who was one of the review editors of the report. “We need to reduce our reliance on coal power and find a way to transport ourselves and all of the goods we consume more economically, more efficiently.” …

Coal use for generating electricity is a big part of why carbon dioxide emissions have nearly doubled their rate of growth worldwide, the report said. The growth rate was 1.3% per year from 1970 to 2000, and 2.2% per year from 2000 to 2010.

Yes, except Germany — the prime model of a government-mandated renewables-based energy transition — is now increasingly turning to more coal to make up for the renewables’ inefficiencies and higher prices. Didn’t really think that one through, did they?

This is supposed to be another piece of that grandiose report with which the UN is going to try to convince world leaders (for the umpteenth time) to sign on the ever-elusive Global Climate Treaty in Paris in 2015. Good luck with that.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

We’ve been fighting this climate hoax for at least 40 years now. First it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Once the politicians recognized what a perfect vehicle it was for infinite regulation/taxation/redistribution, they glommed onto it and proselytized it as the one true religion.

It’s become a never ending battle. About the time we beat back one generation of climate alarmists, the public schools/universities turn out another one.

“It’s really about cars and coal,” said Marilyn Brown, professor of public policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, who was one of the review editors of the report. “We need to reduce our reliance on coal power and find a way to transport ourselves and all of the goods we consume more economically, more efficiently.” …

Ray LaHood, as SecTrans, said his job was to “coerce people out of their cars and onto public transportation”.

Leftists hate it when people can move around to suit themselves, don’t they?

Of course, they hate “people”, period, so why should this be any different?

This is supposed to be another piece of that grandiose report with which the UN is going to try to convince world leaders (for the umpteenth time) to sign on the ever-elusive Global Climate Treaty in Paris in 2015. Good luck with that.

…bet you someone has already signed on that dotted line!…………has big ears…maybe!

Cher: Obama Let Us Down
Liberal self ascribed feminist Cher tweeted Thursday that she has lost trust in the government.

OmahaConservative on January 18, 2014 at 7:40 PM

That’s her way around the social-prestige-popularity factor issue. Like all who depend on public favoritism based upon vanity and media coverage, the ability to test-the-winds for change in attitude is essential. Cher is trying to stay on the favorability listings.

Which means, to people such as that, nothing they claim to believe is ever sincere, it’s only usery based upon what they expect will be most popular with the vanity crowd. When the winds change, the vanity crowd starts to lose interest and develope more interest “over there,” the celebrity belief changes: they’ve “always believed (over there).”

The real knock out blow that finally succeeded in eliminating the Medieval Warm Period was a paper published in 1998 in Nature by Mann, Bradley and Hughes.. This was the original peer reviewed hockey stick article.

Michael Mann had in one scientific coup overturned the whole of climate history. Using [faulty] tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, Mann completely redrew climate history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events…

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review.

This never happened with Mann’s `Hockey Stick’. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann’s paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the increasingly politically committed supporters of the CO2 greenhouse theory. Within the space of only 12 months, the new theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

Consider this: the cap & trade that passed the House in 2009 mandated 83% cuts in CO2. 83 effin percent! This would equate to a near 83% cut in energy. Windmills with the budget problems wouldn’t be afordable, and wouldn’t cut it anyway. “Efficiency” would only give a tiny fraction of that 83%. Nuclear? No. 4% my rear end. These people are dead set on throwing an apocalyptic wrecking ball into industrial civilization.

So, some supportive quotes:
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster… to bomb us into the stone age, where we might live like Indians.” -Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States… [we] must design a stable, low-consumption economy.” -John Holdren (1973), Obama’s Science Czar
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society.” -UN Report
“An ecocatastrophe is taking place on earth.. prohibition, enforcement and oppression are the only solution. Those most responsible..will be sent to the mountains for re-education in eco-gulags. The sole glimmer of hope lies in a centralised government and the tireless control of citizens.” -Pentti Linkola, Ecologist & Climate Activist
“[Climate change policy] is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but against ourselves.” -George Monbiot, UK Ecojournalist

The cost of holding rising temperatures to safe levels may reach 4 percent of economic output by 2030, according to a draft United Nations report designed to influence efforts to draft a global-warming treaty.

Most scenarios that meet the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) cap on global warming endorsed by world leaders require a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in heat-trapping gases by 2050 from 2010 levels, according to the third installment of the UN’s biggest-ever study of climate change.

But China has more than doubled its emissions of “heat-trapping” gases over the last 15 years, while world temperatures have not risen over that time. Have the UN geniuses ever considered that we might get less than 2 C (3.6 F) temperature rise by DOING NOTHING?

Scientists have now discovered that the sun controls our climate, imagine that, and it has been somewhat dormant lately which will possibly cause another mini ice age of sorts. Maybe by 2015 when the UN climate treaty folks meet in Paris, the river that runs thru it will be frozen. Do these guys ever meet in Fargo in February to test their renewables and just how well biodiesel works for ya? I’ll bet Cher tweeted from her power consuming on a grand scale mansion, too. Call me when she’s living in a hut.